TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroneous. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able to take recredit of the said amount. Thus, the alternative prayer put forward at the time of argument is to grant refund taking into consideration the practical difficulty in taking recredit after introduction of GST. There was no adjudication in regard to the application of Sec. 142 of GST Act, 2017. There was no direction in the order to take recredit. Some amount is denied as not eligible also. The proceedings have emanated by filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012, the adjudication has been only in terms of the above and not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST, 2017. The Tribunal being a creature of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount Involved (Rs.) 1. 31/2019 (CTA-1) (CN) dated 15.2.2019 06/2018-19 (R) dated 17.12.2018 15,672/- 2. 32/2019 (CTA-1) (CN) dated 15.2.2019 07/2018-19 (R) dated 17.12.2018 15,16,598/- 3. 33/2019 (CTA-1) (CN) dated 15.2.2019 08/2018-19 (R) dated 17.12.2018 18,86,759/- 4. 34/2019 (CTA-1) (CN) dated 15.2.2019 09/2018-19 (R) dated 17.12.2018 11,84,020/- 5. 35/2019 (CTA-1) (CN) d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (6) TMI 1011 CESTAT MUMBAI. It is submitted by the learned consultant that the Notification does not prohibit the clubbing of various quarters in a single refund claim. Therefore, if the refund claims are considered to be one, the claims would be within the time. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 5. The learned AR Shri S. Balakumar appeared and argued for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. The learned AR submitted that it is very much clear that when the period of one year is computed from the last month of each quarter of refund claim, all the claims are much beyond the period of one year as envisaged under sec. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 27/2012. The argument of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claims were filed clubbing different quarters. The learned consultant has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is pointed out by the learned consultant that in the said case, the refund claim was filed for six months for the period April to September 2012 and the Tribunal set aside the order of rejection which held that refund claims are to be filed for each quarter. In para 3 of the said decision, it is discussed by the Tribunal that Notification prescribes that one claim has to be filed for one quarter. The appellant in the said case had filed one refund claim clubbing the quarters from April to June 2012 and July to September 2012. In the case on hand, the appellant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
